Welcome to the British Farming Forum. The forum for agricultural discussion on all farming topics. You will have to register before you can
post. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

... the self sustaining nature of zTB in the badger is indisputable ...

If every cow in GB was shot, zTB would still be a self sustaining pathogen in badgers

Sadly those who produced this computer model not only dispute it but assume the opposite to be true.

Their reasoning is something like this: A hundred years ago before TB eradication programme the disease was endemic with a lot more infectious cows than we have today, Cheshire and Durham were particularly badly infected. Presumably that infection will have passed in to badgers but as the infected cattle were removed the disease seems to have also died out in badgers.

As I understand it zTB is only self-sustaining in badgers when they reach a critical density, most of SW is probably well above that but other parts of the country below. Would it not be possible to detect the 'badger effect' by showing the levels of zTB in the SW were higher and NE lower than this computer model would predict?

Sadly those who produced this computer model not only dispute it but assume the opposite to be true.

Their reasoning is something like this: A hundred years ago before TB eradication programme the disease was endemic with a lot more infectious cows than we have today, Cheshire and Durham were particularly badly infected. Presumably that infection will have passed in to badgers but as the infected cattle were removed the disease seems to have also died out in badgers.

To my mind that's a massive and flawed assumption. For a start is assumes that TB had passed into badgers at this time, the badger population was much lower, and cattle were kept in a very different way that would have reduced the amount of interaction between them. Cattle were tied up in sheds, with the doors shut during the winter, there wouldn't have been open feed fences with maize silage or wholecrop to attract hungry badgers, and because badgers were far less common, there'd have been less incentive for them to seek food in this way, and much more chance that they'd keep themselves to themselves.

The very fact that we were able to control TB from this position of endemic infection with minimal controls on cattle, strongly suggests that TB hadn't crossed to badgers, or at least they weren't of sufficient population density to sustain ongoing infection and act as a maintenance host.

There was a bit on this on Farming Today on Thurs or Fri, can't recall which. To me, the interesting parts were that we can identify farms which really do fire this thing around. There are apparently farms inside hot spots which don't get TB. That part is crucial. Why is that? Cattle genetics? Lack of badger sets? I think that last point is one that is really worth looking into. If there are farms in hot spots who just don't get TB, identifying the reason for that would be solid gold.

I can understand that farmers are reluctant to blame cattle movement as a potential cause (not THE cause) of TB but we probably have to look at this again.

There was a bit on this on Farming Today on Thurs or Fri, can't recall which. To me, the interesting parts were that we can identify farms which really do fire this thing around. There are apparently farms inside hot spots which don't get TB. That part is crucial. Why is that?

I had a friend like that. The hole in the middle of a polo mint. Until it got her in the end and she lost a shed load of cattle.
We were the same. TB all around us but clear. Then - wham. A 5 year breakdown, 50 home bred mostly heavily in calf cows shot at ongoing 60 day tests. Until the RBCT culled the buggers responsible.

Originally Posted by Pasty

Cattle genetics?

No.

Originally Posted by Pasty

Lack of badger sets?

No. But possibly the opposite. A strong group keeping sick dispersers out.

Originally Posted by Pasty

I think that last point is one that is really worth looking into. If there are farms in hot spots who just don't get TB, identifying the reason for that would be solid gold.

It's a moving feast that gets Defra excited from time to time. Not stable, and not consistent.

Originally Posted by Pasty

I can understand that farmers are reluctant to blame cattle movement as a potential cause (not THE cause) of TB but we probably have to look at this again.

Who's this 'we' Tonto?

I've been 'looking at' zTuberculosis transmission for almost 20 berluddy years. When I first started I didn't think that it would be my own cattle - a closed herd, safe in a ring fenced farm and not doing any hops at all, let alone long distance ones, that would be victims.

Self help required where there is an excess of badgers in any area, particularly where there are cattle being infected.
Where the government are not prepared to carry out their legal obligations the population affected must look after themselves. Come the revolution!

This is a proper academic study conducted by Cambridge & Warwick Universities looking at the data from 15 years of study. It is pointed out that the majority of cases are caused by "Super Spreader" farms that are doing a lot of cattle trading and that the current skin test is inadequate to pinpoint some reactors so that the disease is able to spread rapidly. It concludes that vaccination and mass culling on a scale not seen since 2001 are the only options if the UK Government is serious in controlling bTB. It is difficult to argue with their conclusions

Brings to mind the 'hockey stick' that the IPCC said proved that we had 'climate change',fiddle the figures until they fit the graph and what do we have,lies,damned lies and statistics

I keep reading on web sites from badger groups etc. that whole herd slaughter was part of the initial bTB eradication up to 1960s or so . Is this correct , and if so how widespread was Whole Herd slaughter, back then ?

There has been a couple of whole herd killed locally over the last 15 years, we were told that they would take out our herd 20 years ago but i think with the compensation of 1600 head of cattle put them off in the end, all the herd which were taken out haven't had TB since..... but none have gone back into cattle so it makes defra happy as less herds have it but there are just less herds, when they took this months reactor there was the final two cows from a localish herd of 100 suck cows lost over the last 18 months and the farm is going to be sold, think this will just keep happening over and over again.

I keep reading on web sites from badger groups etc. that whole herd slaughter was part of the initial bTB eradication up to 1960s or so . Is this correct , and if so how widespread was Whole Herd slaughter, back then ?

Definitely not correct. Family's farm lost two cows in the eradication sweep of the late 1950s / 60s. No problems after that, despite the cows tied in a byre and sharing mangers and water. Father in law became a supplier of 'accredited' milk, and received an extra 4d / gallon .

Whole herd slaughter has always been a Ministry veterinary decision, very much depending on the level of infection and number [%] of reactors revealed at any one test. It does happen, but is not a decision taken lightly and never was.

"Experience has shown that an incidence of 20 per cent of rectors in an area can quickly be reduced to about 0.5 per cent by repeated tuberculin testing with rapid removal of reactors and disinfection, but any appreciable lessening of the latter figure may take a considerable time"

There was a bit on this on Farming Today on Thurs or Fri, can't recall which. To me, the interesting parts were that we can identify farms which really do fire this thing around. There are apparently farms inside hot spots which don't get TB. That part is crucial. Why is that? Cattle genetics? Lack of badger sets? I think that last point is one that is really worth looking into. If there are farms in hot spots who just don't get TB, identifying the reason for that would be solid gold.

I can understand that farmers are reluctant to blame cattle movement as a potential cause (not THE cause) of TB but we probably have to look at this again.

Its not cattle movement . Its not cattle to cattle transmission . You suggesting that it is , is not helpful . Look at the studies - paired infected / uninfected cattle and transmission didn't occur . Look at the history - infected animals tied in cowsheds all winter not infecting their shedmates ....

loose does not rhyme with choose but lose does and is the word you meant to write

I had a friend like that. The hole in the middle of a polo mint. Until it got her in the end and she lost a shed load of cattle.
We were the same. TB all around us but clear. Then - wham. A 5 year breakdown, 50 home bred mostly heavily in calf cows shot at ongoing 60 day tests. Until the RBCT culled the buggers responsible.

No.

No. But possibly the opposite. A strong group keeping sick dispersers out.

It's a moving feast that gets Defra excited from time to time. Not stable, and not consistent.

Who's this 'we' Tonto?

I've been 'looking at' zTuberculosis transmission for almost 20 berluddy years. When I first started I didn't think that it would be my own cattle - a closed herd, safe in a ring fenced farm and not doing any hops at all, let alone long distance ones, that would be victims.

I'll ignore the Tonto bit on your behalf. I guess what I mean is that the collective of farmers, scientists etc need to work together to find out the real reasons behind transmission and not just demonise the badger or anything else because we are too ignorant to do anything other than find a token bad guy and think that if we destroy it, everything will be fine. History says things are rarely that simple. Badgers clearly do carry and transmit but so do cattle.

I'll ignore the Tonto bit on your behalf. I guess what I mean is that the collective of farmers, scientists etc need to work together to find out the real reasons behind transmission and not just demonise the badger or anything else because we are too ignorant to do anything other than find a token bad guy and think that if we destroy it, everything will be fine. History says things are rarely that simple. Badgers clearly do carry and transmit but so do cattle.

The epidemiology of ztuberculosis is that simple. Remove the source of infection and all is well.

We asked about cattle reactors in the Thornbury area of Glos, cleared for 8 months:

"No confirmed cases of tuberculosis in cattle in the area of the Thornbury operation were disclosed by the tuberculin test in the ten year period following the cessation of gassing" Hansard: 28th Jan 2004 col 385W [150573]

So, what was the cause of the Thornbury success? Whole herd slaughter? Cohort slaughter? Zoning and movement restrictions, licensing and more cattle measures? Biosecurity and stricter testing? Change in the weather? All measures offered today by the Badger Trust, discussed by the T-Beggars ( T-BAG's successor around Defra's consultation table ) - and tried in the past by others, with humiliatingly expensive and ignominious results.

However, we did ask. And remembering that it is a hanging offence to mislead a minister in written parliamentary questions, his answer was thus:

"The fundamental difference between the Thornbury area and other areas in the south west of England, where bovine tuberculosis was a problem, was the systematic removal of badgers from the Thornbury area. No other species was similarly removed. No other contemporaneous change was identified that could have accounted for the reduction in TB incidence within the area" (Hansard 24th March 2004: Col 824W [157949]

So I'm not 'demonising' anything at all. Just stating facts, many from bitter personal experience.

Cattle transmission, because of the amount of bacteria available and where and how lesions develop - if they develop at all - is rare. Thus in the field, with regular testing and slaughter, transmission is rare. But leave a wildlife maintenance reservoir to flourish and we are, predictably, in the mess we are now, involving many other mammals including household pets and companion animals.

"Experience has shown that an incidence of 20 per cent of rectors in an area can quickly be reduced to about 0.5 per cent by repeated tuberculin testing with rapid removal of reactors and disinfection, but any appreciable lessening of the latter figure may take a considerable time"